Decomposing the Gender Gap in Financial Inclusion: An Oaxaca–Blinder Analysis for Peru, 2024

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The peer-reviewed manuscript, "Decomposing the gender gap in financial inclusion: An Oaxaca-Blinder analysis for Peru, 2024," is a valuable and highly engaging scholarly work. The article's structure encompasses all essential elements, including the introduction, literature review, well-described research methods, and the presented studies, as well as a discussion of the results and conclusions. Based on 44 bibliographic references, over half of which are from the last five years, the Authors provide a solid foundation for further research. The main objective of the study is well-defined: to quantify and decompose differences in access to and use of financial services in Peru in 2024, distinguishing between the part explained by observable characteristics and the unexplained component related to discrimination or differential returns. The quantitative analysis methodology used is interesting, based on the National Household Survey (ENAHO), using weighted and unweighted decomposition models of Oaxaca-Blinder. The authors conducted their research on a representative sample of 14,240 household members in Peru. The selection of variables for the study, the research methods, and the presentation of the research results were all well-developed, with no glaring omissions noted. The manuscript was well-edited; the tables and figures enrich the analyzed content. The conclusions are sound, and the Authors accurately outlined the research gap, indicating both original and applicable contributions to scientific research in the presented area. I recommend the article for publication.

Author Response

I appreciate your comments. However, some pertinent adjustments were made to the introduction, expanding the context with more relevant indicators; as well as to the theoretical framework; and to the methodology, which did not address the limitations encountered during the research. The wording of the conclusions was also improved. Thank you.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper states that the gender gap is pronounced in Latin America and the Caribbean. The goes to "In the case of Peru, this inequality is even more evident". I know it is a truth, but why? The paper should give more details why Peru sample is used here.

The authors say that the human capital theory involves education and financial literacy training. Then goes to "factors such as educational level and labor experience..." I don't know how "labor experience" is involved. If that's the case, then in Table 1, which independent variable is related to "labor experience"?

The paper should explain why use the year 2024. I know the data resource is called "2024 National 142 Household Survey (ENAHO)" but that is not a good reason.

Can Part 5 "Discussion" combined with Part 4 "Results"?

 

Author Response

Below are the answers to the reviewer's questions:

The article states that the gender gap is pronounced in Latin America and the Caribbean. It continues: "In the case of Peru, this inequality is even more evident." I know this is true, but why? The article should explain in more detail why the Peruvian sample is used.
Answer: The analysis of the gender gap in financial inclusion, globally, in Latin America, and in Peru, before the pandemic, during the pandemic, and after the pandemic, has been improved to provide greater clarity in the context of the problem.

The authors state that human capital theory encompasses education and financial literacy. They then analyze factors such as educational level and work experience. I am unsure how work experience is related. If so, in Table 1, which independent variable is related to work experience?
Answer: The justification for the relationship between education and work experience and the gender gap in financial inclusion has been provided; Furthermore, considering Table 1, the variable related to work experience is age. This is why the reference to the results section is justified, as the results are derived from Table 3 and its analysis.

The document should explain why the year 2024 is used. I know the data resource is called "National Household Survey 2024 (ENAHO)", but that's not a good enough reason.
Answer: The existing ENAHO data for 2024 was used, due to the latest existing database, which is currently complete, and at the same time, the decision was made to work with cross-sectional information.

Is it possible to combine Part 5 "Discussion" with Part 4 "Results"?
Answer: According to the scientific journal's template, they suggest separating the results from the discussions.

Therefore, the final version of the scientific article is attached for your consideration.

Thank you

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article on wage discrimination in Peru is a valuable contribution to the literature on wage inequality in the Latin American labor market. The author addresses a topic of enormous social and political importance: wage differences based on gender, ethnicity, and employment status (formal and informal sectors) are among the most significant barriers to development in the region. The article's introduction introduces the reader to the broader context of inequality research, and the Peruvian problem is placed in both national and international perspectives.

One of the main strengths of the work is its solid empirical foundation. The analysis is based on representative survey data, and the method employed – the Oaxaca–Blinder decomposition – is an appropriate tool for examining wage discrimination. This allows the author to separate the portion of wage differences resulting from observable characteristics (such as education or experience) from that which can be attributed to discriminatory factors. The results show that a significant portion of the wage gap remains unexplained, suggesting the existence of actual discrimination, particularly against women and ethnic minorities.

The article is also well-grounded in the literature. The author draws on both classic works on wage discrimination and more recent research on labor markets in Latin America. This allows him to build a coherent theoretical framework and demonstrate how the Peruvian case fits into broader global trends. Another strength of the text is its practical dimension – pointing out the implications for public policy and the need to strengthen mechanisms to combat wage inequality.

The biggest limitation seems to be the cross-sectional nature of the analysis, which does not allow for capturing the dynamics of the phenomenon over time. Although the author mentions historical processes, there is no in-depth longitudinal perspective that could demonstrate how wage discrimination has changed in Peru in recent decades. Furthermore, the sectoral approach, although mentioned, could be further developed. There is also a lack of broader reflection on the limitations of the research method, such as the problem of endogeneity or the difficulty of measuring human capital.

In terms of style and form, the text is clear, though technical at times. The language of econometric analysis makes the work challenging for non-specialist readers, but it still maintains the clarity of the argument. The conclusions are presented in a comprehensible manner and well-connected to the empirical sections.

This article deserves a very positive assessment. It makes a significant contribution to the study of wage discrimination in Latin America and provides important conclusions for both scholarship and public policy. It certainly deserves publication, although the author could consider minor improvements – primarily expanding the sectoral perspective, clarifying methodological limitations, and strengthening the emphasis on the dynamics of the phenomenon over time. The work, even in its current form, is valuable and brings a new, empirically grounded perspective on the problem of inequality in Peru.

Author Response

The reviewer's suggestions are detailed below:

Reviewer 3:
This article on wage discrimination in Peru constitutes a valuable contribution to the literature on wage inequality in the Latin American labor market. The author addresses a topic of enormous social and political importance: wage gaps based on gender, ethnicity, and employment status (formal and informal sectors) are among the most significant barriers to development in the region. The article's introduction introduces the reader to the broader context of inequality research and places the Peruvian problem from a national and international perspective.
One of the main strengths of this work lies in its solid empirical basis. The analysis is based on representative survey data, and the method employed—the Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition—is a suitable tool for examining wage discrimination. This allows the author to separate the portion of wage gaps due to observable characteristics (such as education or experience) from those attributable to discriminatory factors. The results show that a significant portion of the wage gap remains unexplained, suggesting the existence of real discrimination, particularly against women and ethnic minorities.
The article also has a solid bibliographic base. The author draws on both classic works on wage discrimination and more recent research on labor markets in Latin America. This allows him to build a coherent theoretical framework and demonstrate how the Peruvian case fits into broader global trends. Another strength of the text is its practical dimension, which points to implications for public policy and the need to strengthen mechanisms to combat wage inequality.
The greatest limitation appears to be the cross-sectional nature of the analysis, which does not allow for capturing the dynamics of the phenomenon over time. While the author mentions historical processes, there is no comprehensive longitudinal perspective that could demonstrate how wage discrimination has changed in Peru in recent decades. Furthermore, the sectoral approach, although mentioned, could be further developed. There is also a lack of broader reflection on the limitations of the research method, such as the problem of endogeneity or the difficulty in measuring human capital.

Answer: The research complemented the limitations of the aforementioned scientific article, which can be used as a starting point to improve its application in future research.

In terms of style and form, the text is clear, although sometimes technical. The language of the econometric analysis makes it difficult for non-specialist readers, but it still maintains a clear argument. The conclusions are presented in an understandable manner and are well connected to the empirical sections.
This article deserves a very positive evaluation. It contributes significantly to the study of wage discrimination in Latin America and provides important conclusions for both academic research and public policy. It undoubtedly deserves publication, although the author could consider minor improvements, mainly broadening the sectoral perspective, clarifying the methodological limitations, and reinforcing the emphasis on the dynamics of the phenomenon over time. The work, even in its current form, is valuable and provides a new, empirically grounded perspective on the problem of inequality in Peru.

 

Answer: Some pertinent adjustments were made to the scientific article, the final version of which is attached for your consideration. so we can implement the suggestions received.

Thank you.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses a highly relevant topic,  the gender gap in financial inclusion in Peru,  using an econometric technique (Oaxaca–Blinder decomposition) on a nationally representative dataset (ENAHO 2024). The topic is timely, socially relevant, and of interest to both academics and policymakers. The structure of the article (abstract, introduction, theory, methodology, results, discussion, conclusion) follows academic standards.

The introduction mentions the objective of the study but does not sufficiently highlight its originality or added value. Apart from a single sentence describing the research aim, there is no explicit discussion of what is new in this paper compared to existing studies on gender gaps in financial inclusion. Without such a statement, the contribution of the paper remains vague.

The discussion of the complementary theories (Human Capital Theory, Social Exclusion Approach, Structuralist Approach) is too brief and descriptive. Each subsection is limited to a few sentences, without sufficient depth or critical analysis. For a stronger theoretical framework, the authors should expand these sections to explain not only what each theory says in general terms, but also how it specifically relates to gender gaps in financial inclusion. In addition, the links between these theories and the chosen methodology (Oaxaca–Blinder decomposition) are not sufficiently developed. Expanding this part would give the paper a more solid theoretical foundation.

The paper does not discuss the limitations of its methodology or data. The Oaxaca–Blinder decomposition, while widely used, has important constraints: it relies on cross-sectional data, is sensitive to model specification and the choice of reference group, and the “unexplained” component does not necessarily equal discrimination but may also capture unobserved variables. In addition, ENAHO data are self-reported and may involve measurement errors. I recommend that the authors include a brief subsection acknowledging these limitations and suggesting how future research could address them (e.g., panel data, robustness checks, inclusion of qualitative factors).

The conclusion section mainly repeats numerical results already presented in the results section (e.g., the values of the explained and unexplained components) without adding new insights. As written, it does not sufficiently synthesize the broader implications of the study, nor does it clearly translate the findings into specific, actionable policy recommendations. Furthermore, it does not acknowledge the study’s limitations or outline directions for future research. I recommend that the authors revise the conclusion to avoid redundancy,  link recommendations more explicitly to the key variables identified (income, education, rural/urban differences), and include a short reflection on limitations and possible avenues for future work.

Author Response

The reviewer's suggestions are detailed below:

The article addresses a highly relevant topic: the gender gap in financial inclusion in Peru, using an econometric technique (Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition) on a nationally representative data set (ENAHO 2024). The topic is timely, socially relevant, and of interest to both academics and public policymakers. The article's structure (abstract, introduction, theory, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion) conforms to academic standards.
The introduction mentions the study's objective, but does not sufficiently highlight its originality or added value. Except for a single sentence describing the research objective, it does not explicitly explain what new features this article presents compared to existing studies on gender gaps in financial inclusion. Without such a statement, the article's contribution is vague.
Answer: The last part of the introduction includes the originality of the work and the added value, demonstrating the novelty of the scientific article.

The analysis of the complementary theories (Human Capital Theory, Social Exclusion Approach, Structuralist Approach) is too brief and descriptive. Each subsection is limited to a few sentences, lacking sufficient depth or critical analysis. For a more solid theoretical framework, the authors should expand these sections to explain not only what each theory proposes in general terms, but also its specific relationship to gender gaps in financial inclusion. Furthermore, the links between these theories and the chosen methodology (Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition) are not sufficiently developed. Expanding this section would provide the article with a more solid theoretical foundation.
Answer: An expansion of the theoretical framework was made, supporting an in-depth and critical analysis of the sections considered.

The article does not analyze the limitations of its methodology or data. The Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition, although widely used, has significant limitations: it relies on cross-sectional data, is sensitive to model specification and the choice of reference group, and the "unexplained" component does not necessarily imply discrimination but may also capture unobserved variables. Furthermore, the ENAHO data are self-reported and may contain measurement error. I recommend that the authors include a brief subsection acknowledging these limitations and suggesting how they could be addressed in future research (e.g., panel data, robustness checks, and inclusion of qualitative factors).
Answer: The limitations of the study, considering the established methodology, are included in order to suggest some proposals for future research.

The conclusions section primarily repeats the numerical results already presented in the results section (e.g., the values ​​of the explained and unexplained components) without providing new insights. As written, it does not sufficiently synthesize the overall implications of the study or clearly translate the findings into concrete and actionable policy recommendations. Furthermore, it fails to acknowledge the study's limitations or describe future lines of research. I recommend that the authors revise the conclusion to avoid redundancies, link the recommendations more explicitly to the key variables identified (income, education, differences between rural and urban areas), and include a brief reflection on the limitations and possible lines of future work.
Answer: In this regard, the final version of the scientific article is attached for your consideration, incorporating the recommendations made and making the corresponding improvements, highlighting all changes in red.

Thank you.

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed the revised version and I note that the suggested adjustments have been carefully implemented, which has led to a significant improvement of the article. I accept the manuscript in its current form.